🚀 go-pugleaf

Rick DeNatale (denatale@nando.net) wrote:

>bulk of their staff who most likely were grizzled but experienced COBOL
                                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>programmers (who really do consitute the silent majority of professional
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>programmers to this day). Of course the technical staff, who want after
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 In the US this might be true. In the rest of the world it is not true.
I have never met a "professional COBOL programmer" in my life.
I guess outside the USA noone ever bothered to use such a beast as COBOL. ;-)

>
>In the meantime, I got tired a long time ago of debugging these problems
>while effectively writing the same code over and over and over again to do
>binary trees, or b-trees or sorts or whatever, the only difference being a
>few little details of data types, memory allocation etc. etc. etc. I just
>wanted to get the job done, which after all is what the bosses are looking
>for.
>
>That's why I'm a Smalltalk programmer! A proudly professional, computer
>science degree carrying, well-paid, respected in the circles which I care
>about,  Smalltalk Programmer. 

 Well, if you can get your job done with whatever tool be happy with it.
But don't forget that someone HAS TO implement the insides of your
SmallTalk, soone has to do the juggling with the pointers otherwise
you would not get your toy to play with!
You, at least, know what is (or can be) inside your SmallTalk, some
people cannot even imagine. So where is the border between a programmer
and an educated user?

Andras